Temporal Proximity Requirement for “On or About” Dates in Federal Indictments

Introduction

This commentary examines the Tenth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Chisholm, No. 24-7007 (10th Cir. Apr. 9, 2025). The case arose from an indictment charging Paula Amber Chisholm with child abuse in Indian country under 18 U.S.C. § 1153. The indictment alleged that Chisholm’s abusive conduct against her grandson, K.C., occurred “on or about November 20, 2019, and continuing until December 5, 2019.” On appeal, Chisholm argued that the government offered no evidence showing she committed the charged offense “reasonably near” the specified dates. The court affirmed her conviction, clarifying the standard for temporal proximity when an indictment lists specific dates.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit held:

When an indictment specifies dates, the government must produce “some evidence” that the defendant committed the offense “reasonably near” those dates.
“Reasonably near” does not demand exact timing; evidence placing charged conduct within a few weeks of the dates suffices.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there was ample proof of fresh injuries and victim testimony immediately after Thanksgiving 2019—within the indictment’s window.
The conviction for child abuse under 18 U.S.C. § 1153 was therefore affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court relied on a line of Tenth Circuit and Supreme Court decisions shaping the “on or about” doctrine:

United States v. Ellis, 868 F.3d 1155 (10th Cir. 2017): Held that where an indictment lists a date, the government must present “some evidence which tends to show that the defendant committed the charged offense on a date reasonably near to the specified date.”
United States v. Charley, 189 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 1999): Applied the “reasonably near” requirement when specific dates appeared in an indictment.
Kokotan v. United States, 408 F.2d 1134 (10th Cir. 1969): Recognized that proof of an offense within “a few weeks” of the date in an indictment satisfies the “on or about” language.
Ledbetter v. United States, 170 U.S. 606 (1898): Early Supreme Court decision endorsing latitude in proof when an approximate date is charged.
United States v. Castillo, 140 F.3d 874 (10th Cir. 1998): Upheld conviction based on “summer” testimony for an offense alleged to occur in June.
United States v. Simpson, 845 F.3d 1039 (10th Cir. 2017): Distinguished on its facts (addressing jury instructions on constructive possession and intent) but discussed the limits of proof relative to statutory elements.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolded in three steps:

Standard of Review: De novo review of sufficiency of the evidence. The court asked whether “any rational trier of fact” could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Temporal Evidence Requirement: Reaffirmed that where an indictment pins charges to dates, the government must offer evidence placing the defendant’s conduct reasonably near those dates. “Reasonably near” allows for weeks-long flexibility but precludes proof confined to periods remote from the indicted window.
Application to the Record: Photographs and medical evaluation from September through early November 2019 showed no abuse. Fresh bruises, new wounds, and K.C.’s own statements to school and hospital social worker Michelle Swimmer immediately after Thanksgiving break (late November to early December) squarely fell within the indictment’s span. Thus, a rational jury could infer that Chisholm inflicted the injuries during the charged period.

Impact

This decision clarifies prosecutorial and defense strategies in federal indictments that specify dates:

Prosecutors may continue to use “on or about” language for date-specific charges, but must anchor proof to the indicted period, presenting evidence of conduct sufficiently proximate.
Defense counsel will scrutinize temporal gaps in evidence and argue for acquittal if proof shows only remote or indeterminate timing.
Lower courts now possess clear guidance on adult and child abuse cases, drug offenses, weapons charges, and any federal crime where the date range is material to jurisdiction or statutory elements.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“On or About”: Indicates an approximate date in an indictment. It allows slight deviation from the exact date so long as the evidence shows the crime occurred within a reasonable time frame.
“Reasonably Near”: A flexible standard requiring that proof of the offense be close enough in time to the dates listed in the indictment—generally within a few weeks—without demanding pinpoint accuracy.
Sufficiency of Evidence: A legal test asking whether any reasonable jury, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could find every element of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Indian Country Jurisdiction (18 U.S.C. § 1153): Under McGirt v. Oklahoma (591 U.S. 894 (2020)), certain crimes by or against tribal members on tribal land fall under federal—rather than state—jurisdiction.

Conclusion

United States v. Chisholm affirms that the “on or about” dates in a federal indictment impose a requirement of temporal proximity: the government must show the defendant’s conduct occurred reasonably near the dates charged. By endorsing a “few weeks” standard, the Tenth Circuit balances prosecutorial flexibility with the defendant’s right to fair notice of the charged timeframe. This precedent will guide future federal prosecutions across multiple crime categories—ensuring that date-specific indictments rest upon evidence directly linked to the periods alleged.